Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > June 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5147 June 2, 1953 - ILDEFONSO ORTIZ v. HERMOGENES MANIA

093 Phil 317:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5147. June 2, 1953.]

ILDEFONSO ORTIZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HERMOGENES MANIA, Defendant-Appellant.

Ojeda & Vilgera for Appellant.

Luis Contreras for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEALS; NOTICE TO PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS. — The reason for this provision (Section 7 of Rule 40, Rules of Court) for notification of parties, and not of the lawyers, lies in the fact that on an appeal from an inferior court, the complaint in the Justice of the Peace court is deemed reproduced, and the proceeding immediately following the filing of the complaint is summoning of the defendant. Instead, however, of being summoned, he is only personally notified because he is already within the court’s jurisdiction, the notice taking the place of the summons.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur denying a petition to set aside a judgment by default. The order in question is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The defendant has filed a petition for relief from judgment on the ground that the failure to answer within the period prescribed by the Rules of Court was due to excusable negligence. The defendant received the notice of the Court requiring him to answer the complaint on January 6, 1950, but on February 7, 1950, had still failed to answer the complaint. The fact that the defendant’s grandmother got sick and the defendant had to leave for Nueva Ecija, does not constitute excusable negligence, especially when it is taken into consideration that, according to the petition, the defendant had secured the services of Attys. Reyes and Dy-Liacco. It was, therefore, incumbent upon Attys. Reyes and Dy-Liacco, if their services had in fact been secured by the defendant, to file his answer within the period prescribed by the Rules of Court. As a matter of fact, defendant had not filed his answer to the complaint even until March, 1950, showing that he had been absolutely negligent in defending himself from the complaint of the plaintiff." (Record on Appeal, pp. 37-38)

In his second assignment of error appellant claims that no legal notice of the pendency of the action in the Court of First Instance was given him, because the notice was given to him and not to his attorneys. But the trial court found that the attorneys who perfected appellant’s appeal from the justice of the peace court were his lawyers only for that purpose, i.e., to perfect the appeal. (Order of July 15, 1950, Record on Appeal, pp. 46-47.) Appellant’s claim is, therefore, not justified by the facts.

But assuming, for the sake of argument, that said attorneys were, from the time they perfected defendant’s appeal, the defendant’s lawyers, Section 7 of Rule 40, which governs appeals from justice of the peace courts to Courts of First Instance, expressly provides that notice of the pendency of the appeal be given to the parties. This provision, being express and specific, can not be interpreted to mean that the notice can be given to the lawyer alone. The reason for this provision for notification of parties, and not of the lawyers, lies in the fact that on an appeal from an inferior court, only the complaint in the justice of the peace court is deemed reproduced, and the proceeding immediately following the filing of the complaint is the summoning of the defendant. Instead, however, of being summoned, he is only personally notified because he is already within the court’s jurisdiction, the notice taking the place of the summons.

Neither is there any merit in the claim that defendant’s neglect is excusable. His neglect to file his answer in the month of January may be excusable, but not his neglect to file it promptly thereafter. His answer was not filed until March 22, 1950. There is no excuse given by him why he failed to file it in the month of February or within the first twenty days of March. We, therefore, find that the trial court correctly denied his petition for relief. Costs shall be taxed against the Appellant.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5147 June 2, 1953 - ILDEFONSO ORTIZ v. HERMOGENES MANIA

    093 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-5384 June 12, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO VISAGAR

    093 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. L-6055 June 12, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM H. QUASHA

    093 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. L-4568 June 16, 1953 - LA ORDEN DE PP. BENEDICTINOS DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. J. A. STIVER, ET AL.

    093 Phil 341

  • G.R. No. L-6534 June 16, 1953 - IRINEO V. BERNARDO, ET AL. v. WENCESLAO PASCUAL

    093 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-5704 June 17, 1953 - REGINO CRUZ v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    093 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-5960 June 17, 1953 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. COMISION DE SERVICIO PUBLICO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-6512 June 19, 1953 - JOSE D. VILLENA v. MARCIANO ROQUE, ETC., ET AL.

    093 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-5701 June 23, 1953 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

    093 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-5003 June 27, 1953 - NAZARIO TRILLANA v. QUEZON COLLEGE, INC.

    093 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-5085 June 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTA G. DE HILARIO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 5085

  • G.R. No. L-4920 June 29, 1953 - FRANCISCO DIANA, ET AL. v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO.

    093 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-4770 June 30, 1953 - BALTAZAR RAYMUNDO v. BRAULIO SANTOS

    093 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. L-4824 June 30, 1953 - LINGAYEN GULF ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY v. IRINEO BALTAZAR

    093 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-5303 June 30, 1953 - KONG CHAI PIN v. ANTONIO C. GOQUIOLAY

    093 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-5436 June 30, 1953 - ROMAN OZAETA, ET AL. v. POTENCIANO PECSON, ET AL.

    093 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-5531 June 30, 1953 - FELIX DE VILLA v. CESAREO A FABRICANTE, ET AL.

    093 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-5834 June 30, 1953 - ISAGANI GALANG v. JUANA PANGAN VDA. DE REYES

    093 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-5858 June 30, 1953 - FILOMENA JUZON DE PO, ET AL. v. SEGUNDO C. MOSCOSO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-6120 June 30, 1953 - CIPRIANO P. PRIMICIAS v. FELICISIMO OCAMPO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-6411 June 30, 1953 - HERMENEGILDO OMEGA, ET AL. v. HON. JUEZ ARSENIO SOLIDUM, ETC., ET AL.

    093 Phil 457